Food safety is an important issue in the food industry in general and particularly in the industry of supplying protein, i.e., edible meat products, from animals and poultry. By the very nature of the animals and birds, the conditions in which they are grown to suitable size, and the nature of the commercial slaughtering processes, “meat packers” face serious challenges in producing products that pass government and industry standards and are safe for consumption. When a problem arises in the slaughtering process, the consequences can be serious in terms of public health.—exposing many individuals to serious health consequences, including possibly death. Large product recalls of ground beef can result in substantial adverse economic consequences to meat packers, retailers and all those in the intermediate distribution chain.
Many of the health issues in the meat industry involve the transmission and growth of microbial pathogens, e.g., Escherichia coli (“E. coli;” e.g., E. coli 0157:h7), Salmonella, listeria and other pathogens that can cause sickness and death when ingested by humans. Indeed, Salmonella and another pathogen known as “Campylobacter” are the two leading bacterial causes of food poisoning in the United States, according to the Center for Disease Control. Encountering an immediate bout of illness caused by these pathogens may not be the only consequence. At least one report indicates that health effects associated with E. coli and other microbial pathogens may arise months or even years after the initial incident. (“Food Poisoning Legacy: Health Woes can arise Years after Bout, Doctors say,” by Lauran Neergaard reported in The Denver Post, Jan. 22, 2008.) Obviously, it is highly desirable for meat producers to deliver processed meat with minimal incidence of these bacteria.
Despite continuing vigilance for E. coli contamination in beef carcasses and processed beef, E. coli continues to be a persistent problem. Reported cases of sickness and death continue to occur from red-meat contamination, and the industry continues to be at risk to expensive product recalls to correct deficiencies in meat processing and distribution. These health and economic consequences continue to occur despite significant efforts to avoid.
Nevertheless, there is an increasing demand for zero tolerance of E. coli and other microbial pathogens in ground beef (i.e., “hamburger”). Large corporate food retailers (e.g., Wal-Mart) and governmental entities overseeing school lunch programs are promulgating new purchase requirements for hamburger attempting to achieve the zero tolerance goal. While it is possible to promulgate regulations mandating a zero percent tolerance, i.e., incidence, for Salmonella and other pathogens in products leaving a production plant, no known process exists at the present time for achieving that lofty and desirable goal.
To address these concerns, antimicrobial compositions are applied at various stages of meat production. Typically they are applied by spray or in a “bath” to whole carcasses and sometimes to “cuts.” Often the carcasses are subjected to more than one (and often different) antimicrobial intervention as the carcasses move through processing and are disassembled, chilled and packaged for shipment.
Hamburger is prepared from “trimmings” (sometimes called “trim”), boneless beef or other meat segments that are leftover from carcass disassembly and are accumulated, passed through a grinder, chilled and packaged for shipment. In theory, the trimmings are believed to be safe as components for hamburger, because the carcasses from which they were derived had been treated with one or more antimicrobial interventions. There is concern, however, that in practice the trimmings (particularly the exterior of trimmings) may still be subject to contamination or cross-contamination from other intervening sources.
The problem is exacerbated by the fact that the trimmings are commingled before grinding, and the ground beef is commingled after grinding, so that isolated instances of contamination in portions of the trimmings can be spread through larger portions of the hamburger product. Voluntary efforts by meat processors and requirements from customers and regulatory groups have increased the amount of hamburger testing. Nevertheless, testing can never be complete or thorough enough to catch all possible contamination. For example, testing practices can only validate that the specific portion of the trim or ground beef being tested is free of pathogens. Surfaces not tested, even on the same piece of meat, can be contaminated even though the portion tested evidenced no contamination. Thus, testing—even at extreme levels—cannot ensure that contamination is not present. Historically, meat processors have attempted to address these issues by employing sanitary procedures in the processing stages prior to collection of the trim, so that the trim is not likely to contain pathogenic contamination as it arrives at the grinder.
U.S. Pat. No. 6,326,042, assigned to the University of Missouri, describes an antimicrobial intervention in which heat-treated lactic and/or glycolic acid is mixed in with ground beef. In practice, however, antimicrobial interventions are not employed in ground beef for several significant reasons. Among other things, the application of an antimicrobial agent at this late stage of preparation may be accompanied by discoloration of the meat and “off-smells” or tastes that are offensive or objectionable to potential purchasers and consumers. In addition, such a process would be highly inefficient and not necessarily effective. For example, it would be virtually impossible to contact all portions of the hamburger or those portions that are likely to have been contaminated prior to grinding. Nevertheless, a substantial amount of antimicrobial agent will be unavoidably wasted by spraying onto portions of the hamburger that were not contaminated (i.e., portions coming from the interior of the trim). Finally, any antimicrobial intervention used post-grinding must be disclosed on the label of the hamburger product. Even if an antimicrobial intervention can be found that does not result in objectionable tastes, smells or surface discoloration, the label may significantly discourage sales of the treated product notwithstanding its enhanced safety.
Applicant is aware of one instance in which an antimicrobial has been sprayed on to trimmings in a commercial processing facility as the trimmings were conveyed to the grinder, but the process had a number of difficulties, not the least of which were: (a) questionable effectiveness, since all surfaces of the trim may not have been treated with the antimicrobial agent and (b) environmental and other occupational health issues associated with vaporization of the antimicrobial agent into the working environment. The latter would be particularly objectionable, for example, if the antimicrobial were chlorine dioxide—a highly effective antimicrobial with significant potential environmental and occupational health consequences. The ineffectiveness of such an intervention was demonstrated by a recent trial in which antimicrobial was sprayed on pork trim moving in an auger at 37,000 pounds per hour as the trim approached the grinder. Monitoring of the trim exiting the auger revealed inconsistent microbial reduction, and the trial was halted. The conclusion was reached that the antimicrobial did not come in contract with all surfaces of the meat on a consistent basis.
For these reasons, antimicrobial interventions have not been generally employed to treat either the meat trimmings being fed to a grinder or to the ground hamburger that comes out. Another alternative, i.e., irradiation of the ground beef, has not been generally accepted by the consuming public. Thus, current practices have been limited to the use of vacuum packaging of the hamburger or packaging into a low oxygen or “inert” gaseous environment. These efforts, however, only reduce the further growth of any pathogens inherent in the meat. They do not eliminate the pathogen.
Accordingly, there is a significant industry and public need for improved antimicrobial interventions that can effectively and inexpensively reduce the incidence of E. coli, Salmonella and other pathogens in ground meat products, such as hamburger, without adversely affecting the color, smell or taste of the meat or requiring negative labeling.
It is with respect to these and other considerations that embodiments of the present invention have been made. Also, although relatively specific problems have been discussed, it should be understood that embodiments of the present invention should not be limited to solving the specific problems identified in the “background.” The present invention has other significant uses including, for example, the efficacious treatment of other meat products and other food products, in general.